We mentioned this under a different topic.  Now this topic thread is dedicated to the one patent application:

The title probably wanted "Kite" and not "Kit"     Priority: circa 2009.   Korea.

KR100956269 (B1) ― 2010-05-11

POWER GENERATING DEVICE USING KIT  (sic, KITE)

Page bookmark	Espacenet - Bibliographic data Espacenet - Bibliographic data Abstract of  KR100956269 (B1) Translate this text into Tooltip Select language View on worldwide.espacenet... Preview by Yahoo
Inventor(s):	KANG CHANG GU [KR]; LEE HAN JIN [KR]; LEE CHANG MIN [KR]; PARK JIN HYOUNG [KR]; KANG KUK JIN [KR] +
Applicant(s):	WINGSHIP HEAVY IND CO LTD [KR] +
Classification:	- international: A63H27/08; F03D11/02; F03D9/00 - cooperative: Y02E10/722
Application number:	KR20090099380 20091019
Priority number(s):	KR20090099380 20091019

NOTICE to future readers of this topic thread.

Rod Read apparently just posted in this topic thread some intellectual property (IP) that was confirmed as protected under license "All CC4.0 NC BY SA into the big cooking pot" and thus not set under this present topic-thread's non-protection status.

~ JoeF

Walpurgis Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

			Walpurgis Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Walpurgis Night is the English translation of Walpurgisnacht, the German name for the night of 30 April, so called because it is the eve of the feast day of Saint W...
			View on en.wikipedia.org	Preview by Yahoo

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Praetorius_Blocksberg.jpg/800px-Praetorius_Blocksberg.jpg

			http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24...
			View on upload.wikimedia.org	Preview by Yahoo

Rod, maybe the jury can still be out until full text is translated and studied. My sense is that the document is teaching more about the generator than the kite means. Fuzzily I am getting that the generator set could handle drag-based AWES, Yo-Yo-based AWES, massive-wobble-based AWES, twin-oscillating-line-based AWES, and perhaps driven-loop AWES, not sure yet. 

... ache for having members adopt language tasks for IP discernment ...

~ JoeF

THE FOLLOWING REPLY is by Doug Selsam:

==========================================

~ Doug Selsam

==================================================

One part of that extensive FAQ on CC catches my eye. I will quote the section of that wiki as it was showing on October 24, 2014, PDT, 9:15 a.m.

:

"Can I change the license terms or conditions?

Yes—but if you change the terms and conditions of any Creative Commons license, you must no longer call, label, or describe the license as a “Creative Commons” or “CC” license, nor can you use the Creative Commons logos, buttons, or other trademarks in connection with the modified license or your materials. Keep in mind that altering terms and conditions is distinct from waiving existing conditions or granting additional permissions than those in the licenses. Licensors may always do so, and many choose to do so using the CC+ protocol to readily signal the waiver or additional permission on the CC license deed.

CC does not assert copyright in the text of its licenses, so you are permitted to modify the text as long as you do not use the CC marks to describe it. However, we do not recommend this. We also advise against modifying our licenses through indirect means, such as in your terms of service. A modified license very likely will not be compatible with the same CC license (unmodified) applied to other material. This would prevent licensees from using, combining, or remixing content under your customized license with other content under the same or compatible CC licenses.

Modifying licenses creates friction that confuses users and undermines the key benefits of public, standardized licenses. Central to our licenses is the grant of a standard set of permissions in advance, without requiring users to ask for permission or seek clarification before using the work. This encourages sharing and facilitates reuse, since everyone knows what to expect and the burden of negotiating permissions on a case by case basis is eliminated. "

For clarity, one might benefit from:

CC Wiki

 =========================================

In preparation for answering Doug Selsam's concern:

Frequently Asked Questions - CC Wiki

			Frequently Asked Questions - CC Wiki These FAQs are designed to provide a better understanding of Creative Commons, our licenses, and our other legal and technical tools.
			View on wiki.creativecommons...	Preview by Yahoo

In the extensive CC, one would come upon the following meta page:

About The Licenses - Creative Commons

 ==================================================================

It is clear to me that there is a movement to have a MODIFIED CC

for technology, widgets, processes, functions, utility, methods

in a way that the patent system cannot serve as well.  It seems

AWE and K3 Era is in the midst of a world paradigm change

where stakes are high relative to preserving earth as safe-peaceful-creative-and-healthy home.

That a structure may not be fully polished to handle the beyond-patent-system does not mean

one should lay oneself down without a persevering effort to evolve into the new paradigm.

It seems there is an overlay upon the CC structure that is evolving where moral rights upon Internet capacity for technology matters will lead. Disputes will still occur in the Next World of moral rights, but there is a hope that the disputes could stay out of the courts; unfair players will still occur (even the court and conventional patent system does not seem to stop unfair playing). 

 ~ JoeF

			A Wind Turbine That's Bringing Clean Energy to N... And we mean this quite literally.
			View on nationswell.com	Preview by Yahoo

Article links a video that might be with some fresh images in it.

THE FOLLOWING IS A REPLY by Doug Selsam:

======================================

As always, on this site, we are relegated to explaining the dumbed-down, lowest-common-denominator, basics of EVERYTHING, to people who seem unable to get up to speed on even the most basic aspects of any art, topic, or subject.

~ Doug Selsam

========================================================

Doug,

       It seems that one may see in this forum or site a participation in the making of a grand new paradigm that goes to CC+  matters that build a new era beyond a patent system that may not serve earth in ways needed for best survival and flourishing.  Explaining the past is fine; but entering the adventurous possibilities of the future is another matter.  Knowing the past and its basics has merit; but knowing and practicing new processes for possible new better service and blessing may be beneficial.  Staying in the past does not let the future unfold.

~ JoeF

THE FOLLOWING is a reply from Doug Selsam

about the just linked article about Altaeros:

=====================================================\

An honest article (and you'll never find one) would discuss WHY it was not deployed THIS YEAR.  The TRUTHFUL headline might be "Buoyant Wind Turbine Deployment Delayed by 1 Year".   Then the article would explain why the previous article was WRONG.  The NEXT honest article might examine WHY they must apparently wait for SUMMER to deploy it, and if that is the case, why they chose this most wintery site, since, last I knew, Alaska predictably experiences winter every year.  

Did they plan on only running it in the summer?  (wind turbines make more power in cold air)  Or did they expect it to fail within a couple months anyway?  From beginning to end, the whole thing makes no sense whatsoever.  Our dumbed-down, fading civilization is SO USED to a steady diet of "ALL LIES, ALL THE TIME", that we habitually accept it without even thinking.

  ~ Doug Selsam

FOLLOWS IS A REPLY by Doug Selsam  to JoeF's note in #15680

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) I'm not talking about the past, or the future, I'm telling you how the world IS, as in NOW.  While I admire any attempt to improve the way I.P. is handled, rather than improve anything, you simply play a game of "pretend", and go on blithely as long as nobody questions it.  Again, it seems that the purpose of this forum is to endlessly explain the basics of life as though the audience is all second-graders.

~ Doug Selsam

Doug,

       The "+"  for CC+  should have been applied earlier; it is now applied by DaveS' application where applicable as a kind of correction.  The movement of CC+ for disclosing technology is a movement that is in the "now" of actual life; and the movement is far beyond this forum, as some links by Rod indicated.

Awareness of the distinction of "copyright" and mechanical-process-utility-method patenting has been clear to me for over 50 years; your distinctions are clear on that matter.  Note that US "Design" patents form a type of protection over line appearances; when those appearance show in products, then such appearance is protected for the years noted in those "design" or ornamental patents; such is a kind of parallel universe to copyright on copyrightable items.  Your care to question the CC regarding copyright is appropriate, but your attack shows a neglect of respect for the work done by Santos early in the form toward what should have been denoted as CC+    where he spelled out the contemporary movement to having the matter of utility patents be handled in a new system; the harangue on "redefining" misses the reality of the forming of a new system of respect, attribution, and protections that is aside of the patent system.  How well the new system succeeds in benefiting inventors and earth will be told by analysts of the future.  Stopping the building of the new system just because an old system exists does not, of course, get the new system built!    Your questions and effort help to build the new system; thanks for your contributions.   You are invited to continue your patenting while also participating in the new system where technical IP is disclosed and respected in fair play by use of the new tools of Internet, of collections, of peer-review-in-near real time, of new disclosure tools, and Internet search tools. Fair players just may acknowledge date-stamped disclosures and play in the community by teaming and paying fairly.   Publish or perish may be a dictum in academic circles; but the new game might just be that: publish with date stamp and have disclosures discussed openly for some confirmation in order to get and give respect. Play fair and be applauded; play unfairly and be convicted.  Tension will continue but the new system might serve goods sooner than later compared to corporate patent patterns.

~ JoeF

FOLLOWING reply is by Doug Selsam:

========================================

You guys are, as always, hopelessly lost.  A copyright is not a patent and never will be, and it's too bad nobody else is here to hold your feet to the fire and put an end to your endless nonsense on every conceivable topic.

~ Doug Selsam

 Thanks, Doug.  

... of course:   However,

1. It was shown that the examiner system in the patent world misses seeing prior art while approving patents.

2. The patent system is not expected to go away any time soon.

3. The patent system keeps evolving.

4. Movements like CC+ and the like may be part of what helps the patent system to evolve further.

5. The $100 mentioned is just the front door to what can be a very long process that you have described in the forum about your own process. You have described extended efforts way past initial steps.

6. The forum gives high respect for patents that have been filed. The patents are named; increasingly the text of the patents and even patent applications are studied openly. The persons associated with the patents are invited to join the study of the patent. A seeking of novelty is part of the respect; a seeking of untenable claims is also done as a way to honor the efforts of the authors of the instructing documents. And even the non-novelty prose and tips and nuances are sought to be collected and categorized to inform those who would study our works later.  The effort to bring counterexamples to claims is a method of study that helps to sharpen further creative efforts; such gives review while teasing creative steps past what is found in prior art.

7.  I have given the equivalent of about a full year of my work life facing the untenable claim of "invention" made by a kite hang glider person. The work had many side benefits; the history of hang gliders has been made more robust by the struggle.  The applicant and his friend promote "patent" when there was not even a patent, only a provisional that was not formally examined by examiners. A false history is pushed; but the work to get available a more accurate history results in both sides being available for sincere researchers. Now, priority of art is clearly available to all the world through the Internet regarding the art involved. The untenable statements ride; the proof in the counterexamples are available.  Examiners not making an error would have not approved the mechanical arts written in the provisional application for patent; but examiners making errors by missing prior art might have approved the patent application.  Fuzzy matters will occur with the extant patent systems and with other systems of IP respect.  The new era is seeing alternatives.  [[The hang glider kite guy thought, for one, that he invented a device for control that turned out to be one of the most common structures in early aviation and beyond. The FAI fell into the phony spell and locked itself into error by awarding the untenable. Fuzzy human life continues! ]]

8. It would be really neat if patent examiners were robustly comprehensively masters of kite systems and executed flawless review over the matters. That scene does not take place. Some check is provided by appeal courts, etc.  But now there can be additional check-and-balance as regards novelty in technology. Using all the avenues for getting service in place for the good of others seems to be the winning game.

~ JoeF

The FOLLOWING reply to post #15694 is by Doug Selsam:

===============================================

I specifically stated I am not aware of an innovation in wind energy from any of these countries, meaning China and Korea.  Sticking to the facts, rather than the typical name-calling, fact-dodging, posturing, and subject-changing, I specifically challenge the objecting person to name an innovation CURRENTLY USED in wind energy, originating from China or Korea.  Please do not change the subject, call more names, scold, denigrate, posture as above the fray, or in any other way try to dodge the question.  By the way, I happily purchase the Neodymium Supermagnets for manufacturing my generators, and other components, from China, and my understanding is that they were invented in Japan, as was the blue LED.

 ~ Doug Selsam

================================================

Balloon Guidance System  (BGS)

for Mars and other planets with suitable atmospheres:

"A Balloon Guidance System (BGS) provides flight path
control so that balloons can be directed instead of being
completely at the mercy of the prevailing winds."

"In this example, the main wing is 8 m in length and 1 m
in chord for a total of 8.0 m2 in wing area. The assumed
wing coefficient of lift is 0.8 with a corresponding drag
coefficient of 0.2. The estimated mass of this wing
system, including the support boom, rudder, and power
and computer elements is 8.7 kg. The tether mass is
estimated at 1.0 kg (only 125 g/km) while the winch
mass is estimated at 2.0 kg. The total suspended mass of
the BGS system is therefore only 11.7 kg. Designing a
lightweight BGS can easily be achieved by the use of
advanced structures technology including inflatable
structures [7]. "

A METHOD FOR PLANETARY BALLOON FLIGHT PATH GUIDANCE
K. M. Aaron, K. T. Nock, M. K. Heun, A. A. Pankine
Global Aerospace Corporation, Altadena, CA, 91001

Paper:      http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/8_14AARON.pdf

The paper's references:

REFERENCES
1. Aaron, K. M., United States Patent No. 6,402,090,
Balloon trajectory control system, Filed: June 29,
1998, Issued: June 11, 2002.
2. Aaron, K. M., M. K Heun and K. T Nock, “Balloon
Trajectory Control,” AIAA paper 99-3865, AIAA
International Balloon Technology Conference,
Norfolk, VA, July 1999.
3. Aaron, M. K. Heun, K. T. Nock, “A Method for
Balloon Trajectory Control,” COSPAR, Warsaw,
Poland, July 2000.
4. Aaron, K., M. Heun, and K. Nock, “Advanced
Technologies for Extended Flight Stratospheric
Balloon Missions,” 15th ESA Symposium On
European Rocket and Balloon Programmes and
Related Research, Biarritz, France, May 2001.
5. Pankine, A., K. Aaron, N. Barnes, and K. Nock,
“Sailing the Planets: Planetary Science from Guided
Balloons,” 17th ESA Symposium On European Rocket
and Balloon Programmes and Related Research,
Sandefjord, Norway, May 2005.
6. Pankine, A., K. Aaron, N. Barnes, and K. Nock,
“Guided Mars Balloon Platforms”, 4th International
Planetary Probe Workshop, Pasadena, CA, July 2006.
7. Pankine, A., NIAC Phase II Final Report, “Sailing the
Planets: Science from Directed Aerial Robot Explorers
(DARE),” April 14, 2006.
8. Sunada, S., “Comparison of Wing Characteristics at an
Ultralow Reynolds Number,” J. Aircraft, Vol. 39, No.
2, March–April 2002.
9. Justus, C. and D. L. Johnson, “Mars Global Reference
Atmospheric Model (Mars-GRAM) 2001: Users
Guide”, NASA/TM-2001-210961, April 2001.

FOLLOWING REPLY is by Doug Selsam:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nothing about your "trying" to claim "copyright protection" for ideas for physical configurations of mechanical machinery does anything to address all the issues you already have acknowledged that the patent system must address.  Personally, I've become less and less of a fan of patents as time goes on, but unlike you guys, I'm not arrogant enough always to think that my first impressions trump hundreds or thousands of years of experience in solving the problems in every new art I come across.  Maybe a few, but not every one.  No, I consistently find I end up having to solve the same problems the veterans warn about.  The world is not "a newborn baby", it is you guys who are the newborn baby, (WAH!) while thinking you are the wise old men.  Are you sure you aren't teenagers?

~ Doug Selsam

Doug S.,

1. Please note that we had distinguished CC  from CC+  for some distinguishing conventional copyright from the realm where mechanical patent matter will be addressed the CC+ realm.

2. Please note that when a person shares tech with a notice of licensing in the CC+ realm, there is not a presumption that prior art does not exist, but only that the person has a local belief that there may be some global novelty present in the sharing.   It will be up to contenders to show time-stamp counterexamples, if novelty is to be contested.  Such lets interested parties be the examiners on point. In some nations, the publishing of the tech will make patenting not possible; in the US, a grace period of a year seems to apply where after the year the novelty in the published matter won't be able to be fairly patented.

3. Each newbie to AWE is welcome by many in the AWE community. There is no requirement that they have any mastery over all known arts. Fresh naïve questions have the potential to advance the field. Review need never be without creative oversight and insight. Indeed, it is the master will be able to advance the field upon facing the newbie as a catalyst for advancing the field.

4. If I am alive and you use my novelty for profit, you have an option to share that profit with me, maybe so that I might come up with more novelty that might allow you to even make more profit or produce more good for the world. Feed what you wish to live.  I will so act toward you relative to any novelty of yours that I might use for profit.

~ JoeF